Re: Reprise of the panel layout proposal

[thristian atdot org]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 04:15:43PM -0700, James Ramsey wrote:
> BASELINE CONFIG
> ---------------
> 
> This config is the part that is nonremovable except by
> advanced users (presuming that GNOME 2.0 has user
> levels). It has two panels: a modified menu panel, a
> slightly modified aligned panel in the lower-right
> hand corner containing solely a pager.

The basic problem is this: the user should not be able to get
themselves stuck. On the Macintosh, for example, you cannot get rid of
the Finder, the menubar, or the drive icons on the desktop - enough to
"bootstrap" your desktop back to whatever state you like. The problem
is that GNOME was designed to integrate with any window-manager, and
so pretty much *all* its various functions are designed to be
removable. In the worst-case scenario, we're left with a user staring
at a blank screen, while GNOME and the window manager point at each
other and say "I thought *you* were going to take care of it!".

Bearing that in mind, what is the minimum possible desktop needed to
"bootstrap" your desktop back to full functionality?

I would guess you need access to the Programs menu, the Control
Centre, and a panel. The panel should have a visible way to add and
remove applets (I would suggest a small add button on the panel, and a
"popup the applet menu" button, on each applet).

> Menu Panel
> ==========
> 
> **Detailed description of the menu panel**

<snip>

I don't like the Menu panel. The functionality it contains is limited
and better-supplied by other features. Sure, Fitt's Law lets you hit
the Programs menu quickly, but Fitt's Law helps you hit the Foot
button just as easily. If you turn off the hiding arrows on a panel,
you can have a launcher or menu in the *corner* of the screen, giving
you the benefit of Fitt's Law in two axes, something the Menu panel
doesn't do.

On top of that, it wastes a lot of space across the top of the screen.
Sure, a minimalist might like to have  just a menu panel and drop
tasklist and pager applets in it, but unless you stock the "menu" bar
full of a lot of things that *aren't* menus, it's wasting space.

It's also a cruel joke to anyone from a Mac background who expects the
menus of the current application to be at the top of the screen.
Doubly cruel if the Mac user in question is trying to learn the GIMP.

Finally, and this might just be me, but the menu panel makes me feel
claustrophobic, having this big heavy-looking bar across the top of
the screeen above my work. I much prefer to have solid, chunky-looking
panels at the bottom of my screen where they feel supportive. :)

> **Justification for the setup of the menu panel**
> 
> The reason for labeling the menu listing the tasks "Running Tasks"
> rather than leaving as it is now, a menu labeled by a small icon
> representing the currently running task, is that the term "Running
> Tasks" is descriptive and looks like a menu label, while the icon
> currently used doesn't look like a menu label at all, and it is easy
> to overlook.

Granted.

> Further, having the "Running Tasks" menu have an entry when there
> are no running tasks, rather than be totally empty when there are no
> running tasks (as it is now), is because 1) an empty menu is nearly
> invisible, so that a user might click on an empty "Running Tasks"
> menu and conclude that the menu does nothing or is broken 2) an
> empty menu looks wrong or broken, so that users who click on an
> empty "Running Tasks" menu and *do* see the speck of an empty menu
> might conclude that the menu is broken.

Good observation.

> Also, "No tasks running right now" is a good choice
> for the entry in the "Running Tasks" menu when there
> are no running tasks because it not only shows that
> there are, well, no running tasks, but that there
> could be running tasks as the session goes on--which
> is why the entry is "No tasks running right now" not
> just "No tasks running". "Right now" also hints to the
> user that the contents of the menu change with time.

I would suggest that "Current Tasks" be a better name for the menu,
"Running" sounds too jargonny to me. Then the empty menu could be
labelled "No current task" which is more concise and still hints that
this may change in the future (or past).

> I figure that a menu labeled "Main Menu" will probably
> be more obvious than a menu from a button with a GNOME
> logo, and that a user looking for where to change
> settings or find help would probably go to "Main Menu"
> just to see if what they are looking for might be
> there. This is also why "Settings" and "Help" are in
> this main menu, and also why the menu has only a
> handful of entries, so that "Settings" and "Help"
> would be easy to find.

Yeah, there should be a text-label at least - this would be why Win9x
has "[logo] Start", rather than just "[logo]". I doubt that "main
menu" is a great label, though: it reminds me of DOS batchfiles on IBM
XTs and half a page of explanatory text in my old AppleWorks manual.

"Programs", perhaps, but that's not exactly obvious either. I'm
leaning towards "New task" to go with a "Current task" menu. Myself,
I'll make my panel "Icons only" as soon as I can, so I don't care what
it's label is. :)



Implicitly, this means I suggest a panel should be able to be set to
"icons only", "text only", or "text and icons" (or 'gnome default').

Also, it would be nice if you could set a particular menu or launcher
to be text-only (perhaps by giving it no icon). That way, you could
make a "new Task" menu on any panel very easily. Am I making any sense
at all here?

> The proposed layout of the menu panel is motivated by
> several reasons: 
> 
> 1) Fitts' Law. The "Main Menu" and the "Running Tasks"
> are likely to be frequently accessed, so it makes
> sense to put them at corners of the screen where the
> user can just zoom the mouse right over.

Granted, although the menu is not the only kind of panel that takes
advantage of Fitt, and I don't think the menu will let you put things
right in the corners, either.

> 2) Having a "Running Tasks" menu available means that
> a user who does not have room for both a tasklist
> applet and all their other panel "stuff", especially
> buttons, can still have something to use to quickly
> access running tasks.

It's possible that putting "Current Tasks" and "New task" next to each
other on the one panel would be a Good Idea - I'd like to see the Sun
Usability labs try *that* one out. :)

> 3) A "Main Menu" better accounts for entries that
> don't "fit" well into categories, such as "Lock
> Screen", "Log Out", "Run ...". Currently, these are
> under the "System" menu of the menu panel, a menu that
> seems to be an ambiguously named catch-all for things
> that don't fit well under the "Programs" or "Help"
> menu. 

Oooh, *nice*. You can't very well put "Log out" under "New tasks", can
you? That'd invite more questions than the Start menu ("Why do I have
to press `Start' to stop using my computer?"). :)

This would be why the Mac puts these functions away in the "Special"
menu, I guess. *sigh*

OK, I'll re-evaluate my Minimum GNOME Requirements: a way to start
programs, a way to switch between programs, a way to get to the
Control Centre, a way to log out, and a panel.

Possibly, these things don't need to be on the same panel, or make any
panel "undeletable" - I would suggest that the last copy of any of
these items cannot be removed, a panel containing the last copy of any
of these items cannot be removed, and the last panel cannot be
removed.

"Containing" also means "containing a drawer which contains".

Note that this bit of my proposal does not contain any mention of
"for advanced users only" yet shouldn't get in the way of anyone
setting things up however they want.

<snip>

> Aligned Panel with Pager
> ========================

<snip>

> **Justification for the setup of this panel**
> 
> A pager of some sort is needed to navigate workspaces.

I disagree. Some window-managers do not support workspaces at all, and
I'd hate to field tech-support calls for people who "just waggled the
mouse, and all my programs disappeared!" as the window-manager
switched to the next desktop along.

By default, no pager. There's nothing a pager can do that can't be
done with minimizing windows at the expense of a bit more time. If the
user really wants a pager and knows what one is (or wants to learn)
there's a perfectly functional one in the applets menu. 

> INITIAL CONFIG
> --------------
> 
> Aligned Panel with Buttons and/or applets
> =========================================

<snip>

> **Justification for the setup of this panel**
> 
> The point of this panel is 1) to be a dock for
> commonly used apps, and 2) to show off what the GNOME
> panel can do. 
> 
> Note that unlike the other two panels, the presence of
> this panel is not so critical. If a user removes it by
> mistake and can't figure out how to get it back, he or
> she can use the menu panel to get real work done.
> Thus, this panel could be removable without too much
> harm done.

Sure. Let the vendors add as many "special" panels as they like. I
reccommend no menu panel, and having everything by default on a
regular corner-panel so if the vendor-icons were on that panel or
another, it wouldn't really matter to me.

<snip>

To sum up, my proposal for a default panel layout would be something
like this:

* a horizontal corner panel in the lower left, containing
	* a button called "New Task" which pops up the current
	  Programs menu on mouse-down.
	* a button called "Current task" which acts like the
	  finder_applet that's floating around.
	* A launcher for the Control Centre
	* A log-out button

Every panel (including the default) should have a small button across
the far end (bottom or right for edge panels, the opposite end of
drawers) that pops up the current "Add to panel" menu, including such
items as "lock screen button", "log out button", "run button", the
applets submenu, and so forth.

Comments? Flames? People leaping to implement it? :)

-- 
,------------------------------------------------- ------ ---- -- -  -   -
| Screwtape | Reply-To: is munged on Usenet | members.xoom.com/thristian
|--------------------------------------------- ---- ---- --- -- - - -  -  
|
| "Stank leaders closing" -- (many) CityRail employees.
|